Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s talks with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on January 5 were intended to mark Turkey’s return to the European stage after eighteen months of acrimonious exchanges. Beyond the protocol choreography, the exact opposite happened: France clearly stated “non” to the prospect of Turkey’s EU accession, joining the positions of the Netherlands and Austria, and followed by a similar announcement from Germany’s pre-coalition partners just a few days later.
Over the past few weeks, Turkey’s position in Europe has undergone a significant sea change, leading to a fresh search for other policy frameworks. However, Ankara’s current focus on military operations in northwest Syria is now likely to relegate EU relations to the back burner.
In Paris, as part of Macron’s straight-talking approach with countries with whom France substantially disagrees, there was a genuine interest in hosting Turkey’s president. Agenda items included fostering trade and defense interests; securing cooperation on counterterrorism and migration; publicly criticizing the rule of law situation in Turkey; rebalancing Ankara’s relationship with Moscow; and avoiding further diplomatic isolation. This real interest came with a price tag: “no” to EU accession.
For Turkey, meanwhile, the visit was part of an “old friends” strategy that suddenly emerged after several months of trading barbs with European leaders. The charm offensive was aimed at France, Germany, and Bulgaria (which currently holds the EU Council presidency). Convergence on general subjects such as fighting terrorism (though defined differently by both parties) and on Jerusalem’s status was underlined. A warm welcome at the Élysée Palace—and the Turkish foreign minister’s cup of tea at his German counterpart’s home the next day—hit the headlines in Turkey’s pro-government media. Optically, Turkey made an apparent comeback from its diplomatic isolation.
But none of this is as easy as it looks given the wholesale dismantling of the rule of law in Turkey since July 2016. Ankara’s strategy—aimed at political survival at home—is to purge the state of Gülen sympathizers and to cleanse the political and civilian landscape of any form of dissent and diversity, mostly through spurious charges. Under an ever-prolonged emergency rule, a massive clampdown on academia, media, civil society, security forces, and business circles has resulted in 152,000 people being dismissed from public jobs and 132,000 people detained, of whom 64,000 have been formally arrested, according to Turkey Purge.
In parallel, a one-man-rule system is being implemented day by day, while an ultra-presidential system was agreed through a highly-contested referendum last April. Recently, more stringent decrees were signed and the independence of the constitutional court was challenged by the government.
As a result, Turkey is now at odds with the principles it had adopted in December 2004 to win its EU candidate country status: the separation of powers, free and fair elections, a free media, an independent judiciary, and a vibrant civil society.
In Europe, the political mood about Turkey has changed massively since late October: the Dutch coalition government will propose alternatives to accession; the Austrian coalition in power will oppose any move toward Turkey joining the EU; Germany’s current pre-coalition agreement excludes progress on accession, visas, and the Customs Union. Despite cozying up with Turkey’s president on January 5, Macron ultimately chose to firmly close the accession road. This now makes for a very different landscape.
Do EU leaders no longer view the Turkish president as a trusted political ally? To a large extent, they do not. Turkey’s authoritarianism is seen as one-way voyage, simply because Erdoğan will not jeopardize his grip on power by returning to the rule of law anytime soon. As long as Turkey’s political leadership undermines the rule of law, brings its domestic political fights to Europe, and routinely uses anti-EU narratives, there can be no political alliance—despite Turkey’s NATO membership. Therefore the question of rekindling accession negotiations doesn’t even arise anymore, despite Ankara’s improbable proclamations that it upholds the rule of law.
Does this means an isolation strategy? No, it is rather a policy adjusted to Ankara’s own political choices. The EU will keep talking to Turkey. Substance and format still have to be decided on the basis of forthcoming European Commission proposals.
On substance, several subjects of mutual interest are on the table: a modernized Customs Union (politically the most difficult item), cooperation on refugees, cooperation on counterterrorism, bilateral investment and joint defense industry projects, and ministerial meetings in technical areas.
Along with this substantive technical agenda, discussing human rights in Turkey and acting on them will be a political must.
Throughout this process, hopefully, the citizens of Turkey will understand that Europeans hold no grudge against their country or against them as a people. This is not a fight of Europe against Turkey. It is about European citizens defending their own democracy and supporting Turkey’s democrats. Ultimately, it is about the people of Turkey choosing the political system they prefer.
On format, some EU countries—Bulgaria first among them—will want to satisfy President Erdoğan’s longing for summits. Such meetings in December 2004 and October 2015, and even the January 5 press conference in Paris, have left sour memories for those politicians present. Extreme caution is therefore in order. A summit would not help to restore the rule of law in Turkey, but would condone massive human rights infringements and bitterly displease EU citizens.
None of the above would likely impress Turkey’s president much, either. What matters to him is his reelection. Apart from military motivations, the current Turkish operation in Syria—dubbed “Olive Branch”—has an overwhelming goal: to ramp up nationalist sentiments and project the Turkish president as the only politician who can steer the country through a dangerous situation. In these circumstances, agreeing with the EU won’t matter much.
Comments(13)
QAlso, the fact that Turkey is currently occupying another EU country and thrteatens to send 3 million refugees to EU almost dayly is not helping either. I would strongly disagree with the statement that EU citizens dont have any issue with Turkish people. have you studied the latest polls?
This is a sound recapitulation of European sentiments on a Turkish membership of the EU. No chanve at all as long as Erdogan and AKP rule the country and as long as the changes to rule of law atc are not retracted in a credible and lasting way.
When did they ever have a chance? Euros have been dragging their feet deliberately on full Turkish entry into the EU for decades. It seems you're perfectly happy to have Turks as cannon fodder for your proxy wars but you never intended to let them have a place at the EU table to begin with.
Europeans never blame themselves for delivering the people of Turkey into the hands of islamists and the breakage of fundamental human rights in the country. Fragile systems left on their own tend to deteriorate further with unexpected consequences. The numbers of pro EU Turks dwindled as a consequence of EU's stringing along with broken promises. Europeans never accepted Turkish people as part of their own although fifty two percent of them are secular and well meaning people deserving integration into the European society. EU decision makers despite of paying lip service to free travel in EU for Turkish nationals at every turn stringed them along on a dead end road. On an individual basis how would a well educated multilingual individual would feel against those who view her as not worthy of free travel to a neighbouring country ?
Please give up your policy of moderating people's comments !
LOL "The rule of law" (you mean the rule of regime change you can bank on? It failed. I don't think any government in Europe/NATO would have sat by as elements that were in the pocket of a foreign power (USA) attempted to overthrow the government and bomb the parliament buildings. It is sure convenient the way you frame events. Convenient for the US narrative anyway. But those of us who actually read the news with a critical eye know better than to believe the lies spewed forth by "Government friendly" NGOs such as Carnegie Europe. Go ahead and censor this, as we both know you will. Your so called "freedom of speech" is as hollow as all of your other Potemkin values.
Just a question: facing such a dangerous, not-abiding by the rules, reformist regional player, shall the EU enforce its collective military defence?
Are you referring to the US? Because the US is in violation of International law when it illegally invades and attempts to inflict "regime change" on sovereign states with whose governments the US has difficulty bullying or otherwise cowing. We saw the United States' respect for such 'rules' when it illegally invaded Iraq as well. You don't get to pretend that you are the enforcer of "rules" when you are in blatant violation of the very "rules" which you claim need enforcing. Syria's government, however much it may annoy you, is as legitimate as your own and that State enjoys the same rights as all sovereign states: The right to NOT be subject to "regime change" by the geopoltical equivalent of the schoolyard bully. I will close by quoting the actual "rules" - that is, the UN Charter, in order to demonstrate the fact that it is the USA which is in violation of these "rules" which you apparently feel only apply to others and not your own nation. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter, to which the US is necessarily signatory as its seat on the Security Council is dependent on its adherence to these "rules," states that: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." As is made clear, all of the US attempts to effect or impose "regime change" and all of the various "color" revolutions that the US has supported mean that your country has been, is and remains in direct and blatantly egregious violation of the very "rules" which you claim need enforcing.
Mogherini in Malta last spring told her listeners that she had 'no red lines' where democracy and human rights in Turkey are concerned. The Political Criteria of Copenhagen have been dumped. We reached this stage because successive politicians in Brussels kept silent as Erdogan dismantled democracy, ended the independence of the courts, and jailed his opponents -- and razed some towns to the ground. Not a word at the time of Gezi Park, not a word when the Kurdish peace process ended and towns were pre-emptively flattened. Not a word now. Mr Pierini is one of those who shrank from criticism and still doesn't realise that only a robust approach will work -- and ensure that we are not compromised ourselves by our pusillanimous politicians.
"Democracy?" What about Democracy in Catalan? It sure is informative to compare and observe NATO/EU regard for the self-determination of "Ethnic" Albanians in a Non-EU/non-NATO state and its utter lack of regard for the "Ethnics" of Catalan, who again have been subject to State-backed violence - including attacks on public polling places - by a NATO/EU Member State. NATO doesn't get to prattle on about "Democracy" when it allowed dictatorial States such as Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal a seat at the table. And you certainly don't get to pretend that you are "all about the Democracy" after having done so.
You are saying that the EU position on Turkey (or at least your characterisation of it) is "... is about European citizens defending their own democracy and supporting Turkey’s democrats. Ultimately, it is about the people of Turkey choosing the political system they prefer." Didn't Turkey recently have an election and a referendum to "democratically" decide those issues? Isn't this more about the West attempting to force Turkey into becoming a Western nation state and ignoring her ties to South and East?
This analyses are not completed by missing details about futher relationships with Russia and reasons why Russia tolerated military action of Turkey.
also: Turkey was never *in* Europe, as there is apparently no desire to allow them entry into the formal structure of the EU. Turks make great cannon fodder for NATO but the heirs of the NSDAP that run that circus are never going to let Turks sit at the table with "herren folks"
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.